How We Are Evolving

[konradv]

600 years since whitey descended back to the tropics? Are you serious? Is that a joke?

Your timeline is totally 100% fucked

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

LOL!!! You don't believe in AGW despite years of data and known scientific facts about the properties of GHGs, but a few grainy photos and videos is "proof"?!?!

 

[Samson]

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

LOL!!! You don't believe in AGW despite years of data and known scientific facts about the properties of GHGs, but a few grainy photos and videos is "proof"?!?!

What do you expect? The Martian Pyramids have been eroded for thousands of years!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

Why?

Martians built the Cuban Pyramids, just like they did "The Face" on their own planet.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klRbcEnLPbU]YouTube - Underwater City Off of Cuba Part 1 (The Discovery)[/ame]

I don't understand why everyone get so threatened by the idea that there were civilizations before "recorded history" or that Mars and the Moon might have been inhabited tens of millions of years ago. That's the Roman Catholic Church thinking for you.

What difference would it make in your life if so civilization grew then collapsed off of Cuba 15,000 years ago?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

LOL!!! You don't believe in AGW despite years of data and known scientific facts about the properties of GHGs, but a few grainy photos and videos is "proof"?!?!

The properties of GHG are easily verifiable in a laboratory and if they really worked as you claimed it would be no problem for you to show us in a laboratory setting how an additional 200PPM of CO2 does ANY of the things it's been credited for.

So, from my point of view there if far more solid scientific evidence that both the Moon and Mars were inhabited in antiquity than there is for the idea that a wisp of CO2 is going to wipe out all life on Earth

 

[antagon]

600 years since whitey descended back to the tropics? Are you serious? Is that a joke?

Your timeline is totally 100% fucked

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

so you're certain white people made these obscure pyramids.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

How valid is a conclusion based on observation alone when we do not understand the causes of what we are seeing?

I don't know what kind of answer you want here. Am I supposed to give a number or something? It's valid! It's why you can go to any hotel anywhere in the country and understand that flipping a switch next to the door turns on the lights, hitting the big red button at the top of the remote turns on the TV, turning a knob in the shower turns on the water, and twisting the knob on the door locks it. And yet you need not have ANY understanding of electricity, electrical engineering, plumbing, or locksmithery. Conclusions can ABSOLUTELY be drawn from things we don't understand the causes of.

The fact that people can DRIVE should illustrate that point. Every medical drug or product trial in the country goes on that very idea: the results help us "direct the equation", but it's the observable outcomes alone that determine safety, efficacy, side effects, and indications of use. That's why Viagra, a drug originally intended to treat high blood pressure, is now used for other reasons. And I guarantee you that men across the country using it draw valid conclusions without having the slightest clue how it works.

Again, you're stuck in the academic world, which is intelligent and thoughtful, but often times impractical.

There are a lot of math equations that disregard results that fall outside a certain parameters, I have no problem disregarding them. That does not change the fact that they occur, or that they still occur. Even insignificant results make a difference.

I assure you, by the very definition of the word "insignificant", that they don't. What I'm wondering is why you have no problem disregarding mathematics that disregard results that fall outside a certain parameter, but cannot do the same for biology.

Darwin described natural selection as being the same as survival of the fittest. When we examine the actual results we can see that this is not what actually happens, as in some cases the two strongest end up eliminating each other, allowing a third, weaker competitor to survive. This proves that natural selection does not eliminate the random factor and select only for the strongest.

Claiming that all that matters is survival is an oversimplification, and ignores that fact that unhealthy and weak sometimes survives. This gives a much larger range of results than simply life or death.

Once again you're focusing on the details instead of the result. You're throwing out arbitrary attributes as "strong" and "unhealthy". In your example, the "weak" organism has a survival advantage over the "strong" ones. Nonetheless the end result is survival or death. Again, you can look at the details and try to coerce terminology onto them, but evolution has nothing to do with weak, strong, funny, awesome, handsome, and so on. These are useless qualifiers. It has only to do with which species survive an environmental pressure.

Evolution IS about life and death! Or more specifically, the factors that contribute to each.

Everything dies.

And the question is "when"? Or, if you'd like the grittier version: Evolution is about the factors that contribute to survival advantages and the lack thereof.

You keep missing the point. If we start with a limited set of building blocks we are also limited in what can be built. If Darwin is correct, and so far no one has proved him wrong, we started with one life form from which every living thing on Earth descended. Why do you insist that seeing patterns from such a limited materials proves anything?

First, the fact that you just admitted that patterns can and do arise, by definition, shows it to not be statistically random. Second: you once again fall short in identifying the differences between biological and non-biological processes. If you start with a limited set of building blocks in construction, you are very limited in what can be built. But biology is NOT limited by its starting set of building blocks. It is a perfect example of acquiring and duplicating resources, changing them into new "blocks" over time, and creating novel "buildings".

Once again you are taking a taught idea and have trouble seeing how it doesn't apply in this setting.

Bad words are removed, you just have to do some work yourself because the program is limited.

I didn't see how. I highlighted and selected, and it jumbled things anyway. REGARDLESS, the fact that only one sentence is being run instead of tons of parallel sentences simultaneously with the ability to duplicate "good combinations" directly shows how it does not model evolution.

How do you start with the same parts, run the exact same process, and end up with a different result without it being random?

Is the result different? Looks like they all wind up being 3 handed clocks that tell time.

You seem to fall into two traps: First, you have a hard time understanding when terminology of one field are applicable to another. And second, you have a hard time setting different limits, which causes you to ONLY see processes and never results. This is what I mentioned right after you said "I give up". It all depends on the defined end points. You ONLY look at the number of gears of the watch and HOW it's put together. They are different, so therefore they are "random". Putting aside the fact that "different" doesn't mean "random", you continue to miss the outcome which is that they all tell time in the exact same way.

The watch on your wrist is different than the one on mine, but that doesn't make them random. And while one could claim the end result is pre-determined, the fact that they are different shows that it's not completely deterministic. Essentially, you're just not identifying that there are two pictures here, and missing the big one.

It is entirely possible to play a perfect hand of poker using the best possible understanding of the odds and still loose to a person who makes decisions totally at random. It is unlikely, but it happens. Over time the person making the smart choices will win, but that does not eliminate the randomness of both hands, and that means that that random hand will end up as a royal flush every 650,000 hands or so, and the smart player will end up with nothing about every 1000 hands or so.

Which shows it is possible and probably for the random player to eventually win a hand, but as you said previously: it all balances out in the end. Given the setup and a large enough number of hands, the non-random player will always win.

Small picture: he can lose individual hands, which are not deterministic. Big picture: he will win the game, which is not a random outcome.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know what kind of answer you want here. Am I supposed to give a number or something? It's valid! It's why you can go to any hotel anywhere in the country and understand that flipping a switch next to the door turns on the lights, hitting the big red button at the top of the remote turns on the TV, turning a knob in the shower turns on the water, and twisting the knob on the door locks it. And yet you need not have ANY understanding of electricity, electrical engineering, plumbing, or locksmithery. Conclusions can ABSOLUTELY be drawn from things we don't understand the causes of.

The fact that people can DRIVE should illustrate that point. Every medical drug or product trial in the country goes on that very idea: the results help us "direct the equation", but it's the observable outcomes alone that determine safety, efficacy, side effects, and indications of use. That's why Viagra, a drug originally intended to treat high blood pressure, is now used for other reasons. And I guarantee you that men across the country using it draw valid conclusions without having the slightest clue how it works.

Again, you're stuck in the academic world, which is intelligent and thoughtful, but often times impractical.

If I conclude that flipping a switch causes a light fairy to make the bulb glow is that a valid conclusion? It is entirely possible to draw conclusions based on limited knowledge, but those conclusions are not necessarily valid.

You seem to be the one who is missing the point. It is entirely possible to amass date and observations, and even draw conclusions based on those data and observations, but you have no way of determining the validity of those correlations without a proper understanding of the factors surrounding your data.

To put it as simply as possible, correlation is not causation.

I assure you, by the very definition of the word "insignificant", that they don't. What I'm wondering is why you have no problem disregarding mathematics that disregard results that fall outside a certain parameter, but cannot do the same for biology.

Perhaps because insignificant means something different to me than it does to you. That said, we are quibbling over semantics, and what may, or may not, be significant. That is a lot harder to pin down in biology than it is in physics, but I don't have enough evidence to back up my hunch that you are wrong, so we can just ignore it and treat my position as wrong.

Once again you're focusing on the details instead of the result. You're throwing out arbitrary attributes as "strong" and "unhealthy". In your example, the "weak" organism has a survival advantage over the "strong" ones. Nonetheless the end result is survival or death. Again, you can look at the details and try to coerce terminology onto them, but evolution has nothing to do with weak, strong, funny, awesome, handsome, and so on. These are useless qualifiers. It has only to do with which species survive an environmental pressure.

And the question is "when"? Or, if you'd like the grittier version: Evolution is about the factors that contribute to survival advantages and the lack thereof.

Which is something I have argued more than once. (Not with you though, so do not get defensive.) I still think that what matters on the evolutionary scale is not survival, but adaptation. Survivability is simply a side effect of adaptation, but the goal is the ability to adapt. We just focus on survival because it is what matters to us as individuals.

Again, that is my opinion, and I could be wrong.

First, the fact that you just admitted that patterns can and do arise, by definition, shows it to not be statistically random. Second: you once again fall short in identifying the differences between biological and non-biological processes. If you start with a limited set of building blocks in construction, you are very limited in what can be built. But biology is NOT limited by its starting set of building blocks. It is a perfect example of acquiring and duplicating resources, changing them into new "blocks" over time, and creating novel "buildings".

Once again you are taking a taught idea and have trouble seeing how it doesn't apply in this setting.

Ever look in a Kaleidoscope?

You are confused because a random sequence of numbers does not have a recognizable pattern or regularities, and you think the same applies to everything.

First, even a truly random sequence of numbers could have portions which appear not to be random. It is entirely possible for a randomly generated sequence to count by 3s for a short period, but ultimately they would average out. For example, I just generated 100 random numbers and then arbitrarily picked the first 10 number sequence that began with 817. It came back to an actual phone number in Fort Worth.

Second, patterns do not mean randomness does not esist. Remember your insistence that I keep misapplying the terms from math to the real world? Randomness in nature does not preclude the existence of patterns. Fractals are mathematical realities where patterns arise out of randomness.

Fractal Geometry

I didn't see how. I highlighted and selected, and it jumbled things anyway. REGARDLESS, the fact that only one sentence is being run instead of tons of parallel sentences simultaneously with the ability to duplicate "good combinations" directly shows how it does not model evolution.

Yet Dawkins likes to use it to prove that randomness can result in order. It takes a lot of time, and a lot of work, but it is actually possible to generate coherent sentences out of it. There are better models out there that learn from the mistakes, but I cannot locate them right now.

Is the result different? Looks like they all wind up being 3 handed clocks that tell time.

You seem to fall into two traps: First, you have a hard time understanding when terminology of one field are applicable to another. And second, you have a hard time setting different limits, which causes you to ONLY see processes and never results. This is what I mentioned right after you said "I give up". It all depends on the defined end points. You ONLY look at the number of gears of the watch and HOW it's put together. They are different, so therefore they are "random". Putting aside the fact that "different" doesn't mean "random", you continue to miss the outcome which is that they all tell time in the exact same way.

The watch on your wrist is different than the one on mine, but that doesn't make them random. And while one could claim the end result is pre-determined, the fact that they are different shows that it's not completely deterministic. Essentially, you're just not identifying that there are two pictures here, and missing the big one.

They end up being three handed clocks because the program selects for clocks that can accurately tell time, and unless you differentiate between the seconds you are not going to accurately tell time.

Which shows it is possible and probably for the random player to eventually win a hand, but as you said previously: it all balances out in the end. Given the setup and a large enough number of hands, the non-random player will always win.

Small picture: he can lose individual hands, which are not deterministic. Big picture: he will win the game, which is not a random outcome.

Big picture, I would bet on him winning the game, but I will not guarantee it. The myth of beginner's luck manages to stick around because it actually works out that the novice occasionally beats the expert, ask any expert.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s - CNN

Oh, we are evolving alright. The Democrats are stronger than they were in WWII.

 

[Samson]

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

Why?

Martians built the Cuban Pyramids, just like they did "The Face" on their own planet.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klRbcEnLPbU]YouTube - Underwater City Off of Cuba Part 1 (The Discovery)[/ame]

I don't understand why everyone get so threatened by the idea that there were civilizations before "recorded history" or that Mars and the Moon might have been inhabited tens of millions of years ago. That's the Roman Catholic Church thinking for you.

What difference would it make in your life if so civilization grew then collapsed off of Cuba 15,000 years ago?

I'm with you, bro!

I just wish the Elvin race was still in Middle Earth......I don't miss the Dwarfs and Orcs so much, but Elf Gurls are Hawt.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If I conclude that flipping a switch causes a light fairy to make the bulb glow is that a valid conclusion?

Is your conclusion supported by the facts of the case whatsoever? No! This is not the first time you've set up an example where the outcome has nothing to do with the setup. Whether you're looking at a coin clip based on the premise of a physical filter or the cause of a light from a light going on, you're misguiding the validity of the concept.

The CONCLUSION you draw from flipping a switch and seeing a light go on every time is that flipping the switch is followed by the light going on. You don't need to know the HOW or the WHY to draw that conclusion. Unfortunately all you seem to focus on is the how and why when, for all practical intents and purposes, they don't matter.

You seem to be the one who is missing the point. It is entirely possible to amass date and observations, and even draw conclusions based on those data and observations, but you have no way of determining the validity of those correlations without a proper understanding of the factors surrounding your data.

To put it as simply as possible, correlation is not causation.

Correlation does not equal causation, but correlation is still correlation! And valid conclusions can be drawn on established correlations accordingly. Once again: you don't need to understand causation to draw a valid conclusion regarding the correlation.

It's why I can say men are four times more likely than women to be struck by lightening. This is a valid conclusion based on recorded evidence, and it has NOTHING to do with the causation.

Perhaps because insignificant means something different to me than it does to you. That said, we are quibbling over semantics, and what may, or may not, be significant.

I think you just inadvertently made a funny. Regardless, this is coming back to the application of statistical terms onto other fields. "Insignificant" in biology and laymen's terms generally refers to: "devoid of importance, meaning, or force" or "not important, consequential, or having a noticeable effect".

Which is something I have argued more than once. (Not with you though, so do not get defensive.) I still think that what matters on the evolutionary scale is not survival, but adaptation. Survivability is simply a side effect of adaptation, but the goal is the ability to adapt. We just focus on survival because it is what matters to us as individuals.

Again, that is my opinion, and I could be wrong.

Sounds like a good opinion.

Ever look in a Kaleidoscope?

You are confused because a random sequence of numbers does not have a recognizable pattern or regularities, and you think the same applies to everything.

I had to go back and reread, as I didn't properly clarify. I should have focused not just on a pattern arising, which as you say in no way disproves randomness, but the specific, non-random greater pattern established by the pencil, which was static as long as the pencil remained in the same position.

The pencil was a filter that created a specific, probably reproducible static form that was not affected by the randomness of the program. In short: every time a pencil filter is applies in that matter to the random fractal, a specific non-random outcome occurs.

They end up being three handed clocks because the program selects for clocks that can accurately tell time, and unless you differentiate between the seconds you are not going to accurately tell time.

A clock can accurately tells time with more than three hands. In fact, one of the scenarios had a 4 hand predominant era before reverting back to 3. But regardless, the point still stands: the result is still not random.

Big picture, I would bet on him winning the game, but I will not guarantee it. The myth of beginner's luck manages to stick around because it actually works out that the novice occasionally beats the expert, ask any expert.

We're not discussing "beginners luck" here. We're not even discussing the psychology of poker. We're talking about a computer program with two players, where one is either casting out random cards, or keeping specific cards that lead to a winning outcome. The former is using a completely random process, and the latter is using a selective filter on a random process.

This point still remains as well: The small picture is that the non-random computer player can lose individual hands, because they are not deterministic. The big picture is that same non-random computer player will win the game over the random computer player, which is not a random outcome.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why not?

Here is my reasoning: There are many breeds of dogs that simply did not exist 300 years ago that exist today. Of course, dogs can regenerate much more quickly than humans, so necessarily, it takes longer for humans to genetically develop different features for which we assign the term "race," but are no less arbitrary than the hair on a black lab and the hair on a golden retriever is to different dogs.

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

so you're certain white people made these obscure pyramids.

I have no idea who they were, if they were white or black or something else. All I know is that sometime before the last Ice Age ended there was a robust civilization that perished in the Great Flood that exists as "Legend" in every civilization that's ever populated Earth

 

[Samson]

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

so you're certain white people made these obscure pyramids.

I have no idea who they were, if they were white or black or something else. All I know is that sometime before the last Ice Age ended there was a robust civilization that perished in the Great Flood that exists as "Legend" in every civilization that's ever populated Earth

Martians.

They were either Martians, or Vulcans.

 

[JW Frogen]

How are we evolving?

Don't know.

How am I evolving?

The older I get the hornier I get.

Fuck, by the age of 70 I will probably want to impregnate the entire planet.

Including a 80 year old Rosie O'Donnel.

 

[Samson]

How are we evolving?

Don't know.

How am I evolving?

The older I get the hornier I get.

Fuck, by the age of 70 I will probably want to impregnate the entire planet.

Including a 80 year old Rosie O'Donnel.

You...

You........


You, Bitch.....

 

[Charles_Main]

How are we evolving?


Including a 80 year old Rosie O'Donnel.

You just made me toss my dinner on the key board you bastard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is your conclusion supported by the facts of the case whatsoever? No! This is not the first time you've set up an example where the outcome has nothing to do with the setup. Whether you're looking at a coin clip based on the premise of a physical filter or the cause of a light from a light going on, you're misguiding the validity of the concept.

The CONCLUSION you draw from flipping a switch and seeing a light go on every time is that flipping the switch is followed by the light going on. You don't need to know the HOW or the WHY to draw that conclusion. Unfortunately all you seem to focus on is the how and why when, for all practical intents and purposes, they don't matter.

How is my conclusion not supported by the facts? What can you point to in the facts that makes my conclusion unsupportable. The only thing you can point to is the additional knowledge we both have that electricity is the driving force behind that light coming on, which makes my point that the only way to draw a valid conclusion is by understanding all of the underlying factors even stronger.

Correlation does not equal causation, but correlation is still correlation! And valid conclusions can be drawn on established correlations accordingly. Once again: you don't need to understand causation to draw a valid conclusion regarding the correlation.

It's why I can say men are four times more likely than women to be struck by lightening. This is a valid conclusion based on recorded evidence, and it has NOTHING to do with the causation.

Yet you are willing to argue that correlation equals causation when it comes to evolution. Why? Is it because you know that we do not understand the whys involved, so it makes it easier to simply point to correlations as some sort of proof?

Tell me, is this a valid conclusion based on the observation you made that men are more likely to be struck by lightning?

Answers.com - Why are men struck by lightning four times more than women

Or is it this one?

Are Men Or Women More Likely To Be Hit By Lightning? | Popular Science

Personally I think they are both bunk. The simple fact is that men are more likely to have jobs where getting struck by lightning is a possibility, which also explains why the so called pay gap between men and women exists. But my guess is no more, or less, valid than anyone's unless we actually examine the details surrounding those lightning strikes.

Sounds like a good opinion.

Thanks

I had to go back and reread, as I didn't properly clarify. I should have focused not just on a pattern arising, which as you say in no way disproves randomness, but the specific, non-random greater pattern established by the pencil, which was static as long as the pencil remained in the same position.

The pencil was a filter that created a specific, probably reproducible static form that was not affected by the randomness of the program. In short: every time a pencil filter is applies in that matter to the random fractal, a specific non-random outcome occurs.

Good point.

Applying a non random pattern (filter) to a random pattern does make the result more predictable, something I have never actually disputed. That dos not make the initial pattern less random, nor does it make the resulting pattern less random, it just means we can predict what effect the pencil will have.

A clock can accurately tells time with more than three hands. In fact, one of the scenarios had a 4 hand predominant era before reverting back to 3. But regardless, the point still stands: the result is still not random.

Can it tell time more accurately than a 3 handed one? I think not, or we would have 4 handed clocks that proved they were more accurate than the 3 handed ones.

We're not discussing "beginners luck" here. We're not even discussing the psychology of poker. We're talking about a computer program with two players, where one is either casting out random cards, or keeping specific cards that lead to a winning outcome. The former is using a completely random process, and the latter is using a selective filter on a random process.

This point still remains as well: The small picture is that the non-random computer player can lose individual hands, because they are not deterministic. The big picture is that same non-random computer player will win the game over the random computer player, which is not a random outcome.

Again, I would bet on the non random player, but the random player can still win.

 

[antagon]

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

so you're certain white people made these obscure pyramids.

I have no idea who they were, if they were white or black or something else. All I know is that sometime before the last Ice Age ended there was a robust civilization that perished in the Great Flood that exists as "Legend" in every civilization that's ever populated Earth

so what does that have to do with your back-to-black expectation after populations migrate back to equatorial regions?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

so you're certain white people made these obscure pyramids.

I have no idea who they were, if they were white or black or something else. All I know is that sometime before the last Ice Age ended there was a robust civilization that perished in the Great Flood that exists as "Legend" in every civilization that's ever populated Earth

so what does that have to do with your back-to-black expectation after populations migrate back to equatorial regions?

It means the time line explaining human evolution is way off and almost certainly did not occur as current proposed by Evolution theory. An advanced civilization in Cuba 15,000 years ago and possibly one in Mexico over 250,000 years ago (see below) throws a monkey wrench in the theory

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

 

[konradv]

I have no idea who they were, if they were white or black or something else. All I know is that sometime before the last Ice Age ended there was a robust civilization that perished in the Great Flood that exists as "Legend" in every civilization that's ever populated Earth

so what does that have to do with your back-to-black expectation after populations migrate back to equatorial regions?

It means the time line explaining human evolution is way off and almost certainly did not occur as current proposed by Evolution theory. An advanced civilization in Cuba 15,000 years ago and possibly one in Mexico over 250,000 years ago (see below) throws a monkey wrench in the theory

"Geologist Virginia Steen McIntyre and other members of a team from the U.S. Geological Survey examined the site and, using four independented dating techniques, found that the implement-bearing layers were about 250,000 years old. This result radically contradicts the established notion that humans capable of manufacturing such tools first existed about 100,000 years ago in Africa. This is how the "scientific" establishment reacted to this bombshell, in the narrative of Cremo and Thompson."

A Brief Look at Anomalies and Suppression in Archeology and Paleoanthropology

There's no monkey wrench in evolution, because there's no proof what you're saying is true. It amazes me that you're taken in by some grainy photos and videos, but reject hard data when it comes to AGW theory. That's just intellectual dishonesty, Frank.

 

[konradv]

The discovery of pyramids deep underwater off the shores of Cuba throws the whole "600 year" time frame for people moving into the tropics totally out the window.

LOL!!! You don't believe in AGW despite years of data and known scientific facts about the properties of GHGs, but a few grainy photos and videos is "proof"?!?!

The properties of GHG are easily verifiable in a laboratory and if they really worked as you claimed it would be no problem for you to show us in a laboratory setting how an additional 200PPM of CO2 does ANY of the things it's been credited for.

So, from my point of view there if far more solid scientific evidence that both the Moon and Mars were inhabited in antiquity than there is for the idea that a wisp of CO2 is going to wipe out all life on Earth

Been done and explained many times to you. Not our fault you lack simple comprehension skills. How is what's been said before on the topic less convincing than some grainy videos? How about answering that?